Philosophical: Definition Of A Mechanic

[schir1964]

Another thread has sparked my curiosity.

Here is the question or viewpoint:

What restriction or limit should there be (if any) for defining the a level of immutability for a mechanic?

I'll try to explain this better.

If you define a mechanic with a set of descriptive rules, should there be minimum level of definition such that the mechanic may not be altered by other mechanics (such as Adders/Subtracters/Limitations/Advantages)?

At what point does modifying a mechanic from its base definition change the mechanic into another mechanic altogether?

Examples

Desolidification: This power by definition means the character is unaffected by physical means by default. Should this definition be immutable and unchangeable by other rules/mechanics, or should all the components be removable/changeable?

Aid Variant (Succor): This variant removes the base definition of Aid (Fade Rate/Max Level). Should this definition be immutable and unchangeable by other rules/mechanics, or should all the components be removable/changeable?

Healing Variant (Regeneration): This variant removes the base definition of Healing (Max Reuse Time). Should this definition be immutable and unchangeable by other rules/mechanics, or should all the components be removable/changeable?

Running: This power by definition has a restriction of working only on semi-solid non-vertical surfaces. Should this be immutable and unchangeable by other rules/mechanics, or should all the components be removable/changeable?


Should there be a limit that defines when the mechanic has ceased being that mechanic and something else, or should all mechanics be broken down into discrete definition components that can be removed or added at will?

Thoughts/Opinions

- Christopher Mullins

[JmOz]

I feel that each power has a core function, what I call a mandate, when you look at that mandate you see the "true" part of the power, this core should not be modified

One problem with Desolid is that it has two related cores, and really they should be spit in two (Walk through items, never take damage)

a power should also not go to far beyond it's mandate either (a part of what I don't like about the whole dispel DESTROYS foci rule)

[Sean Waters]

Personally I think that if we need to bend a mechanic into a new shape to make it do what we want then we need a new mechanic. Ditto if we need special rules to make a power work in a new way - if we need special rules then we might as well ahve a new mechanic.

I don't, for instance, mind Desolid being used as a form of invulnerability, but I do resent the idea that this advantageous (and quite ill defined) use removes the need for the 'Affects Real Worls' advantage and, presumably sidesteps the 'affects desolid' advantage.

If we want invulnerability in the system then we should put invulnerabilty in the system. The position has always been that such an absolute is inimical to Hero, but if enough people want it, why not?

There always has to be an element of judgement involved, because otherwise we'd be writing an even longer rule book making clear where all the boundaries lie, and it is not a stunning plan to stifle creativity.

This sort of thing works in reverse too, where the rules, rather than being too permissive, are perhaps too restrictive: witness the rather odd position where you cannot create light (for example) with a change environment power - you need to use images.

A little overlap is not necessarily a bad thing: if we broke Hero down to its compenents and scratch-built everything then no one would ever buy the basic toolkit - it would be too much work - but it might be a useful developers tool - kind of the difference between a programming language and a final (hopefully user friendly) piece of software.

[Sean Waters]

One other point on the topic. I'm perfectly happy for an advantage to change the way in which a power works. Remove END costs - cool - make it AoE - fine.

I'm keen, however, to avoid 'compound power modifiers' as much as possible - things that, in effect, wind up with an increased cost but apply limitations in that cost (for example Damage Shield), or, conversely, reduce the cost, but include advantages (oh, where to start....).

The 'zero sum' power modifier is just an example of this - I'd rather see:

Power + Advantages - Limitations

It keeps us all honest.

[Doc Democracy]

I'm with JmOz. It seems that every power should be followed with a small piece of text that says what role it performs in the game.

Energy Blast - this power is the core power to cause damage in the game and it works, by default against either of the default defences (energy defence or physical defence).

Something as simple as that defines the mechanic being presented to the players of the game.

You could add text like:

It works at range, costs END and is visible when in use.

By doing this you begin to add stuff that can and usually will change using limitations etc. I might even remove the second clause of the caption I provided. Keep the initial text simple and you get a good idea of what the power is for. Anything that changed that would indicate that you are stretcing the mechanic beyond what it is intended for and another power or new mechanic might be a better idea.


Doc

[Sean Waters]

It is not just HERO that has this problem. In England we have a piece of legislation called The Protection From Harassment Act which makes it an offence to pursue a course of conduct that you know or ought to have known would cause harassment, alarm or distress. This was bought in, in 197, as anti-stalker legislation, and everyone thought, oh what a good idea – all those knife wielding freaks following us in the shadows will have to go find another hobby. Unfortunately, over time, there have been ‘clarifications’, so, for instance, harassment can include persistently annoying someone. A course of conduct means ‘conduct on more than one occasion’, and the conduct can be words, behaviour, writing – anything. It does not have to even be directed at the person so long as there is a reasonable expectation they will hear about it.

So, in England, since 1997, it has been a criminal offence to argue with someone twice, or to criticise someone, even to a third party, on more than one occasion.

It has not stopped either – this is not an isolated incident. The 2003 Sexual Offences Act made it a criminal offence for two 12 year olds to kiss. I kid you not.

So what?

Just this – I’m seeing a parallel here. No one set out to criminalise arguments or affection, but it has made criminals of us all. The problem is that the law is drafted very broadly, and you are expected to us your discretion – restrain yourself.

I’m thinking it would be nice to have far more restricted laws that actually told you what you could and could not do, but allowed for the expansion of those laws to cover unforeseen situations as a matter of discretion.

Getting back to the philosophical basis of Hero, I’d like to see the same. Some nice, tight definitions, with discretion to go outside the box if you have to, rather than no box at all and a piece of chalk you can use to draw a box if you want to.

Oh, and I’d like Doc Democracy to draft all future UK legislation :D

[Marcus]

One other point on the topic. I'm perfectly happy for an advantage to change the way in which a power works. Remove END costs - cool - make it AoE - fine.

I'm keen, however, to avoid 'compound power modifiers' as much as possible - things that, in effect, wind up with an increased cost but apply limitations in that cost (for example Damage Shield), or, conversely, reduce the cost, but include advantages (oh, where to start....).

The 'zero sum' power modifier is just an example of this - I'd rather see:

Power + Advantages - Limitations

It keeps us all honest.

For the record, I agree with you whole-heartedly that advantages should be purely advantageous, and limitations should be purely limiting.

Some of the players in my local group have taken to referring to Damage Sheild as a limitation and foci/charges as an advantage.

[JohnTaber]

I agree with Doc and Jedi Master. There is some core function that is present in most powers that defines them. Yes, advantages and limitations can change the bells and whistles but the core is present.

With EB I would almost define it as a ranged attack that does not combine with a stat. In fact in my latest campaign I have renamed it Normal Attack - Ranged and Normal Attack - Hand-To-Hand to match the definitions for Killing Attack.

Essentially...ditto. ;)

[Hugh Neilson]

I'm with JmOz. It seems that every power should be followed with a small piece of text that says what role it performs in the game.

Energy Blast - this power is the core power to cause damage in the game and it works, by default against either of the default d

I like the brief descriptor, but it might go better as an "index page"- a basic rundown of the various mechanics and what they do in-game. This would allow a player to skim the list looking for mechanics that may suit the construct he is working on, rather than paging through the entire section.

[Sean Waters]

I'm a little worried that there seems to be quite so much agreement on this thread, but power descriptor as an index sounds great.

[RDU Neil]

After nearly two years of non-Hero board action, I was requested to come to this thread and comment. I expected some contentious bit of online brawling commentary, yet what I find is a bunch of my favorite long-time Hero posters having quite a civil conversation.

heh.

Anyway... I'm not sure what exactly I might say on this subject. I don't actually play RPGs anymore... been out of that kind of gaming for a long time now... still, this kind of conversation is near and dear to my heart.

Seems many are still requesting the ol' "Intent" concept to be included in Hero descriptions. Always thought that needed to be there. The "The intent of EB is to provide a ranged damage attack... etc." Always a good idea, IMO.

On the Definition of a Mechanic, I go back to my old standbye... Mechanic vs. Game Rule vs. SFX

A mechanic should have a base functionality that shows how it interacts with other mechanics... nothing defined beyond that. Example: 1d6 EB generates 1-6 S and 1-2 B and are negated 1 for 1 by PD/ED (Forcefield etc, just being variations on this defense.). Or some such.

That core mechanic should not be violated in intent, though adding or subtracting from this basic effect is grounds for modifier (advantage/limitation) costs.

Example: AP effectively makes EB 1 for 2 vs. defenses... so increases the cost... but is still based on the basic mechanic.

The problem comes when you include Game Rule and SFX layers in the description so that they seem to be part of the mechanic, but aren't.

Example: Running... 2" of movement per 1 pt spent is the mechanic... but "only when touching a surface" is a SFX. There are no surfaces mechanically defined. They are SFX of the game world. Must be touching the ground... well the ground only exists as an SFX of the SIS. Generic mechanic assumes nothing about ground or cars or trashcans or sides of buildings or lake surfaces... those are SFX.

To make movement more generally mechanical, you'd need a core mechanic like - 2 inches of game movement per 1 pt that can shift the character in any three dimensions in relation to other character positions in defined game area. (Of course, the proponents of Flatland Hero would have a sh-tfit over this but hey? :D) Then you can limit movement in a variety of ways.

Of course... all movement assumes some element of SFX... air, water, earth, surface, etc. These built in SFX defined aspects muddy the issue a great deal, because when they are considered part of the "core mechanic" there is an assumption of like games, like SFX from game to game, where the occurrence of water, air, earth, surface are equal and of equal importance. Rarely is that the case in a truly "generic" system. Assuming a generally earth like/human society occupied SIS which your character will operate in is layering on all kind of Game Rule/SFX associations directly on to mechanics

How do you limit that stuff effectively? Dunno. Not that I would propose cutting out that SFX level stuff... that would gut Hero... but it does cause problems when deconstructing the system like that.

Good to know not much has changed in the 2 years I've been gone. ;)

Hope you all are doing well and life is good thing. Take it easy.

[ghost-angel]

I'm with JmOz. It seems that every power should be followed with a small piece of text that says what role it performs in the game.

Energy Blast - this power is the core power to cause damage in the game and it works, by default against either of the default defences (energy defence or physical defence).

Something as simple as that defines the mechanic being presented to the players of the game.

You could add text like:

It works at range, costs END and is visible when in use.

By doing this you begin to add stuff that can and usually will change using limitations etc. I might even remove the second clause of the caption I provided. Keep the initial text simple and you get a good idea of what the power is for. Anything that changed that would indicate that you are stretcing the mechanic beyond what it is intended for and another power or new mechanic might be a better idea.


Doc

Every Power has a header in the book like this:

Type:
Duration:
Target:
Range:
Costs END:
Cost:

The opening paragraph describes in simple terms the Powers most basic function.

Energy Blast, for example, says: "A character with Energy Blast can attack at Range, doing Normal Damage."

While it could be argued to add in the type of Defense, if you look up Normal Damage you discover it is a Mechanic describing damage going against PD or ED.

Going through the book, the first sentence, occasionally first two sentences, describe exactly what you are talking about.

So, erm, you got what you wanted! Ain't it cool.

Something I think should be removed from the first paragraph is Example SFX and that should be moved to a separate section altogether. Say a minor header at the end of each Power Description called "Example Special Effects"

[Doc Democracy]

The opening paragraph describes in simple terms the Powers most basic function.

Energy Blast, for example, says: "A character with Energy Blast can attack at Range, doing Normal Damage."

While it could be argued to add in the type of Defense, if you look up Normal Damage you discover it is a Mechanic describing damage going against PD or ED.

Going through the book, the first sentence, occasionally first two sentences, describe exactly what you are talking about.

So, erm, you got what you wanted! Ain't it cool.

In most cases, the opening sentence or two does this to an extent. I think a sharp legal mind, like Steve's, could do a much better job.

"A character with Energy Blast can attack at Range, doing Normal damage." Seems to get the core but range is not core to the mechanic EB provides as you take it away with the limitation no range. The core mechanic is normal damage. Some people build energy blasts that do no damage. I think that should be possible but you should be aware that you are going outside the intended remit of the power.

I agree that an index descriptor would be useful.

Something I think should be removed from the first paragraph is Example SFX and that should be moved to a separate section altogether. Say a minor header at the end of each Power Description called "Example Special Effects"

Yup. Would remove potential for confusion.


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Good to know not much has changed in the 2 years I've been gone. ;)

Hope you all are doing well and life is good thing. Take it easy.

Was surprised to see you contribute :) - I have missed your contributions - nice to see you are still about, even if you aren't talking to us any more :(

Hope you drop in now and again just like Zornwil does.

What kind of gaming are you involved in?


Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Oh, and I’d like Doc Democracy to draft all future UK legislation :D

Would love to but I cant see them clearing that any time in the near future. Things would be clearer in DD World!

:):king:

[JohnTaber]

Every Power has a header in the book like this:

Type:
Duration:
Target:
Range:
Costs END:
Cost:

The opening paragraph describes in simple terms the Powers most basic function.

Energy Blast, for example, says: "A character with Energy Blast can attack at Range, doing Normal Damage."

While it could be argued to add in the type of Defense, if you look up Normal Damage you discover it is a Mechanic describing damage going against PD or ED.

Going through the book, the first sentence, occasionally first two sentences, describe exactly what you are talking about.

So, erm, you got what you wanted! Ain't it cool.

Something I think should be removed from the first paragraph is Example SFX and that should be moved to a separate section altogether. Say a minor header at the end of each Power Description called "Example Special Effects"

Perfect idea. Really like that...I would give you rep...but I already have... ;)

[ghost-angel]

If Steve asks for ideas on ways to better present ideas in the book - those forums I'll be in. I think we could do a lot to avoid confusion by just moving some text around a bit.

[PhilFleischmann]

schir1964 specifically asked me to read and contribute my thoughts to this thread, so here goes.

First of all, I'm not really sure what the question means, or if the posts so far are getting at what Chris was asking about.

Definition of a Mechanic: a guy who fixes your car. That clears that up.

I agree with Sean's comments below:
Personally I think that if we need to bend a mechanic into a new shape to make it do what we want then we need a new mechanic. Ditto if we need special rules to make a power work in a new way - if we need special rules then we might as well ahve a new mechanic.

I don't, for instance, mind Desolid being used as a form of invulnerability, but I do resent the idea that this advantageous (and quite ill defined) use removes the need for the 'Affects Real Worls' advantage and, presumably sidesteps the 'affects desolid' advantage.

If we want invulnerability in the system then we should put invulnerabilty in the system. The position has always been that such an absolute is inimical to Hero, but if enough people want it, why not?

There always has to be an element of judgement involved, because otherwise we'd be writing an even longer rule book making clear where all the boundaries lie, and it is not a stunning plan to stifle creativity.

This sort of thing works in reverse too, where the rules, rather than being too permissive, are perhaps too restrictive: witness the rather odd position where you cannot create light (for example) with a change environment power - you need to use images.

A little overlap is not necessarily a bad thing: if we broke Hero down to its compenents and scratch-built everything then no one would ever buy the basic toolkit - it would be too much work - but it might be a useful developers tool - kind of the difference between a programming language and a final (hopefully user friendly) piece of software.
Only two points of possible disagreement: I think Images works better for creating light (but that's really a separate discussion.

And more importantly, I wouldn't say that, "A little overlap is not necessarily a bad thing." I would say that a good deal of overlap is necessarily a very good and necessary thing. You should be able to choose how you build your character and his powers. Multiple ways to do it is very useful. It may not be so important if you look at the game as a way of manipulating dice (as some say, a "Roll-Playing Game"). But it is if you are focused on the role-playing - the characters and the abilities they have in non-game terms. IOW, start with the concept, and find a mechanic that represents it.

WRT mechanics, what raises the red flag for me is the manipulation of a power into something that is no longer what it is. Jamming a square peg into a round hole, as it were. I've seen many examples of this:

Desolid, limited so it's not really desolid.
Flight limited so you can't really fly.
Shape Shift that doesn't really let you shift your shape.
Extra-Dimensional Movement, that doesn't really move you to another dimension.

I like Hugh's idea of the index page of power descriptions. I'd say these desciptions could simply be added as an extra column on the power table. Here's how I'd write them:

Absorption - temporarily increases abilities based on damage taken
Aid - temporarily increases abilities
Armor - defends against damage
Change Environment - changes conditions, such as temperature, in an area
Clairsentience - allows sensing in space and time that your senses don't normally reach
Clinging - allows sticking to, or holding onto surfaces
Damage Reduction - reduces damage taken
Damage Resistance - defends against Killing damage
Darkness - blocks sense(s) in an area
Density Increase - increases your density (and therefore mass and strength)
Desolidification - causes your body to be no longer solid
Dispel - turns off a Power
Drain - reduces abilities temporarily
...
Energy Blast - does damage
Entangle - prevents movement
Killing Attack - does damage
...

I think you get the idea. (I don't feel like typing up the whole list).

[casualplayer]

The way I feel is that if a mechanic requires more than one sentence to describe what it does at the unmodified level then it's being asked to do too much or burdened by assumptions. If it absolutely cannot be summarized in a single sentence, then it's a sneaky power construct that should be taken to first principles.

Take Desolidification and render it from the Tunneling/Damage Reduction hybrid it is. It desperately needs to revert to some type of scaled pricing structure because as it is it's priced well for Heroic level games and a no-brainer purchase for any higher point total games.

Entangle needs to throw off the shackles of being "icebonds and webbing" made to serve as psiparalysis and handcuffs. It should be the effect of a Ranged Grab, flavored to suit with things like Continuous, Persistant, Physical Manifestation, etc. If you want it to do more then Link stuff to it!

Adjustment powers could be fixed by turning Fade Rate into a scalable Limitation, making them Instant and pricing the core power appropriately. Most people will tack on Costs END to Activate, Continuous and Persistent, and by all means show this in the sidebar, but not everyone will. They have to be changed so that they are competitive with just a raw +CHAR slot in a Multipower because RAW adjustment powers aren't right now.

[Clonus]

When I was into whatever system it was they used for DC Heroes and Blood of Heroes, I repeatedly scolded other designers for modifying a power so it did something it didn't normally do but didn't do what it actually did do. "If you're going to make up a new power, make up a new power!" I'd say.

[ghost-angel]

In most cases, the opening sentence or two does this to an extent. I think a sharp legal mind, like Steve's, could do a much better job.

"A character with Energy Blast can attack at Range, doing Normal damage." Seems to get the core but range is not core to the mechanic EB provides as you take it away with the limitation no range. The core mechanic is normal damage. Some people build energy blasts that do no damage. I think that should be possible but you should be aware that you are going outside the intended remit of the power.

Thought about this for a minute... there's the Ranged Mechanic, and then there's a Ranged Attack.

You can remove the Ranged Attack aspect of Energy Blast - but you cannot remove the Ranged Mechanic.

Lemme esplain...

Ranged Mechanic: STR Does Not Add, Can Be Missile Deflected
Ranged Attack: attacks at a distance.

You can add the No Range Limitation and remove the 'attacks at a distance' aspect.

Can Be Missile Deflected may or may not be removed depending on the Special Effect of the Attack (machine gun? CBMD; megablast radiating from the character? Can Not Be MD; yo-yo? CBMD; . . .)

You cannot ever remove the STR Does No Add aspect.

Therefore, I contend that Ranged Normal Attack is THE core aspect of Energy Blast and you cannot simplify it any further. Even if you add No Range you must still keep in mind several parts of the Ranged aspect of the Power.

[Sean Waters]

........................

Therefore, I contend that Ranged Normal Attack is THE core aspect of Energy Blast and you cannot simplify it any further. Even if you add No Range you must still keep in mind several parts of the Ranged aspect of the Power.

Nice thinking there. What 'no range' does, on a ranged attack, is set range=0, rather than making it non-ranged.

(Oh, and I'd say there should be a +1/4 advantage you can buy for ranged attacks 'cannot be missile deflected'.)

[Doc Democracy]

Thought about this for a minute... there's the Ranged Mechanic, and then there's a Ranged Attack.

You can remove the Ranged Attack aspect of Energy Blast - but you cannot remove the Ranged Mechanic.

Lemme esplain...

Ranged Mechanic: STR Does Not Add, Can Be Missile Deflected
Ranged Attack: attacks at a distance.

You can add the No Range Limitation and remove the 'attacks at a distance' aspect.

Cannot Be Missile Deflected may or may not be removed depending on the Special Effect of the Attack (machine gun? CBMD; megablast radiating from the character? Can Not Be MD; yo-yo? CBMD; . . .)

You cannot ever remove the STR Does No Add aspect.

Therefore, I contend that Ranged Normal Attack is THE core aspect of Energy Blast and you cannot simplify it any further. Even if you add No Range you must still keep in mind several parts of the Ranged aspect of the Power.

As Sean said, well analysed. This is not something you'd pick up immediately from the book (it shows a good knowledge of the rules to see the implications).

Thus I think the defining sentence at the start needs to have the wrinkles like this defining what the core is.

It is also word problems again. For anyone not in the know, ranged would mean, can attack at range, in Hero it has much different implications. If we dont change the words we need to ensure that the implications are very upfront.


Doc

[PhilFleischmann]

Take Desolidification and render it from the Tunneling/Damage Reduction hybrid it is.
Here it seems to me you're defining a mechanic in terms of other mechanics, which I think is a problem, and can only lead to confusion. And individual power, should be defined in its basic sense as the effect, in real-world terms, not in game-mechanical terms. Only then do we assign the game mechanic to enable it. And yes, I agree with you that Desolid would be improved if it had a scalable mechanic (I suggested as much on the 6ED boards - such as X points per DEF of material you can pass thru). Another possible scale would be based on the "phase of matter" you assume (I put it in quotes because it isn't quite strictly according to physics) - once price to become "jelly-like" and malleable, more points to become fully liquid, more to become gasseous, and more to become "metaphysically insubstantial" like a ghost. And somewhere in there would be the ability to become like separate particles (Sandman).

But to me (and this makes a good example) Desolid is the ability to become desolid - it's not just Tunneling + Damage Reduction. It doesn't make a tunnel, and it doesn't reduce damage from a particular type of attack (or SFX) or any attack with Affects Desolid.

[casualplayer]

Here it seems to me you're defining a mechanic in terms of other mechanics, which I think is a problem, and can only lead to confusion. And individual power, should be defined in its basic sense as the effect, in real-world terms, not in game-mechanical terms. Only then do we assign the game mechanic to enable it. And yes, I agree with you that Desolid would be improved if it had a scalable mechanic (I suggested as much on the 6ED boards - such as X points per DEF of material you can pass thru). Another possible scale would be based on the "phase of matter" you assume (I put it in quotes because it isn't quite strictly according to physics) - once price to become "jelly-like" and malleable, more points to become fully liquid, more to become gasseous, and more to become "metaphysically insubstantial" like a ghost. And somewhere in there would be the ability to become like separate particles (Sandman).

But to me (and this makes a good example) Desolid is the ability to become desolid - it's not just Tunneling + Damage Reduction. It doesn't make a tunnel, and it doesn't reduce damage from a particular type of attack (or SFX) or any attack with Affects Desolid.

Desolid is SFX jammed down your throat. It is 100% Damage Reduction with some power modifiers wedded to a hole-filling Tunnelling that ignores DEF. It's double absolute in a scalar game system, so out of bounds that it necessitates creating a special Advantage (Affects Desolid) just to deal with it. If any other power was so contrary, so disruptive that this kind of step had to be taken, it would be burned as a witch. Stopsign, magnifying glass, road flares, concertina wire, a moat filled with sharks with lazer beams to keep players away.

What is the effect of being immaterial? Interposing objects don't hamper your movement and attacks, primarily physical, don't inflict damage. What if you could take Indirect on your movement and just define your "not taking damage" as the SFX of a hefty PD or DCV?

But anyway, I would say a mechanic is a concept of the game system that can only be amended not subverted or deleted. G-A's example is perfect.

[PhilFleischmann]

Desolid is SFX jammed down your throat.
Jammed down my throat? It's the SFX that I'm after! Reason from effects, remember? You start with the concept of "I want a sci-fi character with a interdimensional-semiphasing device," or "I want a mist-form spell for my wizard," or "I want a ghost to haunt the players in this horror-game," or "I want a superhero with powers like the Sandman." Only then do you look for the mechanic in the rules.

Nothing is being jammed down anyone's throat. You want to be desolid? here's the power and how it works. Not that it's necessarily the best way of doing it. It could certainly be improved upon.

What is the effect of being immaterial? Interposing objects don't hamper your movement and attacks, primarily physical, don't inflict damage. What if you could take Indirect on your movement and just define your "not taking damage" as the SFX of a hefty PD or DCV?
That's another possible mechanic for the concept.

But anyway, I would say a mechanic is a concept of the game system that can only be amended not subverted or deleted. G-A's example is perfect.
It goes back to the ambiguity of the original question. Again, I have no idea if we're really addressing the issue Chris intended to raise. I'm not even sure he can define what he was trying to get at.

[casualplayer]

It goes back to the ambiguity of the original question. Again, I have no idea if we're really addressing the issue Chris intended to raise. I'm not even sure he can define what he was trying to get at.

Oh good, I thought it might just be me. :o

I don't care for SFX hardcoded into the power. It doesn't make for a very versatile tool in my toolbox.

[Doc Democracy]

Jammed down my throat? It's the SFX that I'm after! Reason from effects, remember? You start with the concept of "I want a sci-fi character with a interdimensional-semiphasing device," or "I want a mist-form spell for my wizard," or "I want a ghost to haunt the players in this horror-game," or "I want a superhero with powers like the Sandman." Only then do you look for the mechanic in the rules.

Nothing is being jammed down anyone's throat. You want to be desolid? here's the power and how it works. Not that it's necessarily the best way of doing it. It could certainly be improved upon.

I think that this is at the core of Chris' question. How far can a power be stretched before it is not performing the role that it should be.

When a player says they want an interdimensional-semiphasing device, the response should not be - so you want to be desolid? It should be more like - so what does that accomplish for you?

Then you find out whether they can walk through walls etc. If they want a power that allows them to walk through walls then you might draw desolid out of the box. If they want to be able to ignore certain types of attack (I do not think that this would be a part of the 'indexing sentence' of the power) then you might have to look at other powers, depending on the way that this worked.

If a player wants to be able to interact with the physical world and yet ignore physical objects (mist form) should we modify desolid or design a new mechanic designed and costed for this purpose. Chris' question is (as I understand it) where this line should be drawn.


Doc

[schir1964]

First of all, I'd like to thank everyone that has participated. It has been very informative to see the viewpoints on this.

Second, I think the most have gotten the gist of what I was asking and based on the posts by everyone involved, just about everyone has contributed to answering the question I posed.

Third, Doc has summed up very nicely what I was having trouble stating in a concise manner.

- Christopher Mullins

[PhilFleischmann]

I don't care for SFX hardcoded into the power. It doesn't make for a very versatile tool in my toolbox.
I don't really see it as the SFX hardcoded into the power, mor elike the other way around. The system needs to be complete enough to cover all possible power concepts, such as becoming insubstancial in various ways. And it ought to have the flexibility to allow for the precise implimentation of those concepts, such as the differences between turning into smoke/mist or becoming "metaphysically" desolid like a ghost.

I'd have no problem if a character wanted to buy Damage Reduction and Some form of Tunneling or other powers and define the SFX as "turning into a ghost-like form". But it isn't quite the same mechanically as the Desolid power, and might not be the right approach to take for all conceptions of (small-d) desolid.

In general, it is a very *good* thing to have multiple ways of implimenting a concept. We already have that in many areas.

[Paragon]

Sorry for the bit of necro here, but Chris had asked me to give this question a look, and I've been very busy the last few weeks, enough I wasn't looking at this board at all (and I think at this point I'll bail out of the 6e discussion since I've sat out enough of it).

My own feeling is that no component of a power mechanic is sacred. Choosing the base effect you're looking for from available options based on what seems closest to it, and mutate the rest at need.

Otherwise you're forced into mechanics that don't seem appropriate to you just because of what a power is called.

Two classic examples:

1. You want a power that does nothing but knock people away from you. There are two obvious ways to do it: a Limited TK and a limited EB. A purist approach would argue for the TK because TK is about moving things, whereas knockback is a side effect of an EB. But TK is largely all or nothing; if your concept is that the effect that knocks things away is variable in its reliability or has other properties where the blast seems more appropriate, I say go with the Blast.

2. You want a concealment power that affects the target's perception roll, but doesn't make you automatically unseen. Two obvious ways are to Limit either Invisibility or Images. The purist will say Invisibility, because its property is to conceal you; but if you want to be able to manipulate the degree to which you're hard to see, there's no obvious metric with Invisiblity, while Images has one built in, so it might be the better choice.

That said, Hero has never been entirely non-conflicted on what is appropriate for base effects anyway; some powers have always carried a lot more baggage than others (partly because there are two kinds of powers in Hero; real base core powers, and a handful of "powers of convenience" that represent effects seen often enough in comics that it was seen as tedious to have to construct them every time (and prone to getting into potentially undesireable inconsistencies)). That's one reason some purists would like the "Four Basic Elements" approach.

[Sean Waters]

...............That's one reason some purists would like the "Four Basic Elements" approach.

...so that would be the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravity.

6th is going to be some book.






What?